Latest news with #freedomofexpression
National Post
2 hours ago
- Politics
- National Post
New laws against blocking access to places of worship, schools coming, Fraser says
OTTAWA — Justice Minister Sean Fraser says the Liberal government will press ahead with plans for new criminal provisions against blocking access to places or worship, schools and community centres. Article content The measures, promised during the recent federal election campaign, would also create a criminal offence of wilfully intimidating or threatening people attending events at these venues. Article content Article content Article content The minister's statement comes as civil libertarians point to existing provisions intended to curb such behaviour and push back against the idea of new measures that could infringe on freedom of expression and assembly. Article content Article content Tensions have risen in Canadian communities over public protests, many prompted by the ongoing hostilities in the Middle East. Article content Several Canadian municipalities have taken steps recently to mandate 'bubble zones' that restrict protest activity near such places as religious institutions, schools and child care centres. Article content 'It's not lost on me that there will be different levels of government that try to address this challenge in different ways,' Fraser said, adding that the federal government has an opportunity _ where behaviour crosses a criminal threshold — to legislate in that space. Article content 'We clearly have seen challenges when it comes to certain religious communities in Canada who are facing extraordinary discrimination — antisemitism, Islamophobia, and other forms of hate,' Fraser said in a recent interview. Article content Article content 'People need to know that in Canada they are free to pray to the God of their choice and to, at the same time, freely express themselves, but not to the point where you threaten the protected Charter rights of a religious minority.' Article content James Turk, director of the Centre for Free Expression at Toronto Metropolitan University, said he questions the need for new provisions and suggests politicians are proposing penalties simply to appear to be doing something. Article content He said existing laws against mischief, nuisance and interfering with religious celebrations can be used to deal with the kinds of behaviour the federal government wants to address. Article content 'I haven't heard a single thing that isn't already illegal, so it's a waste of time. It adds confusion to the Criminal Code and it suggests that they're only engaged in performative activity,' Turk said. Article content 'They want to be seen to be doing something about this pressure they're under.' Article content Anais Bussieres McNicoll, director of the fundamental freedoms program at the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, also said she wonders about the scope of the proposed new federal provisions 'and if they are necessary or simply duplicative of existing criminal offences.'
CTV News
4 hours ago
- Politics
- CTV News
New laws against blocking access to places of worship, schools coming, Fraser says
Pro-Palestine protesters and pro-Israel protesters face off at a demonstration at a synagogue in Thornhill, Ont., Thursday, March 7, 2024. THE CANADIAN PRESS/Frank Gunn OTTAWA — Justice Minister Sean Fraser says the Liberal government will press ahead with plans for new criminal provisions against blocking access to places or worship, schools and community centres. The measures, promised during the recent federal election campaign, would also create a criminal offence of wilfully intimidating or threatening people attending events at these venues. The minister's statement comes as civil libertarians point to existing provisions intended to curb such behaviour and push back against the idea of new measures that could infringe on freedom of expression and assembly. Tensions have risen in Canadian communities over public protests, many prompted by the ongoing hostilities in the Middle East. Several Canadian municipalities have taken steps recently to mandate 'bubble zones' that restrict protest activity near such places as religious institutions, schools and child care centres. 'It's not lost on me that there will be different levels of government that try to address this challenge in different ways,' Fraser said, adding that the federal government has an opportunity — where behaviour crosses a criminal threshold — to legislate in that space. 'We clearly have seen challenges when it comes to certain religious communities in Canada who are facing extraordinary discrimination — antisemitism, Islamophobia, and other forms of hate,' Fraser said in a recent interview. 'People need to know that in Canada they are free to pray to the God of their choice and to, at the same time, freely express themselves, but not to the point where you threaten the protected Charter rights of a religious minority.' James Turk, director of the Centre for Free Expression at Toronto Metropolitan University, said he questions the need for new provisions and suggests politicians are proposing penalties simply to appear to be doing something. He said existing laws against mischief, nuisance and interfering with religious celebrations can be used to deal with the kinds of behaviour the federal government wants to address. 'I haven't heard a single thing that isn't already illegal, so it's a waste of time. It adds confusion to the Criminal Code and it suggests that they're only engaged in performative activity,' Turk said. 'They want to be seen to be doing something about this pressure they're under.' Anaïs Bussières McNicoll, director of the fundamental freedoms program at the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, also said she wonders about the scope of the proposed new federal provisions 'and if they are necessary or simply duplicative of existing criminal offences.' Bussières McNicoll said it's important to remember that a protest might be disruptive but also protected by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms' guarantee of peaceful assembly. 'As a parent myself, I know that any protest can be sometimes scary for a child. We're talking about loud voices, huge crowds, emotions are running high,' she said. 'So I believe it's part of my role as a parent to teach my child about what living in a democracy means, why we need protests, why we need space in our society for strong language — including language that we disagree with — and to teach my child about what we can do if we personally disagree with speech that we hear.' Richard Robertson, director of research and advocacy at B'nai Brith Canada, said that while the organization welcomes the planned new federal provisions, additional federal measures are needed. B'nai Brith wants national 'vulnerable infrastructure legislation' that would prohibit protests within a certain distance of a place of worship or school, or perhaps during specific time periods, if they interfere with someone's ability to attend the institutions, Robertson said. 'That would remove the need for municipalities and provinces to adopt legislation, and it would send a clear message that across Canada, individuals do not have the right to prevent others from accessing their houses of worship and their community centres and cultural institutions.' With files from Anja Karadeglia This report by The Canadian Press was first published June 28, 2025. Jim Bronskill, The Canadian Press
CBS News
2 days ago
- Politics
- CBS News
Forest Lake Area School District debates repealing ban on clothing displaying certain symbols
This school district may repeal a ban on clothing with swastikas and KKK signs This school district may repeal a ban on clothing with swastikas and KKK signs This school district may repeal a ban on clothing with swastikas and KKK signs A northern Twin Cities metro school dress code debate is drawing large crowds and criticism at a school board meeting on Thursday. Forest Lake school leaders are considering repealing the ban on wearing clothing that displays the Confederate flag, swastika and KKK signs. "It will 100% impact the decision on where I send my children," said one parent at Thursday's school board meeting. It's a tense topic at the Forest Lake Area School District school board meeting. "The proposed dress code changes are based on the Minnesota school board association policy," said President Curt Rebelein to the crowd. "And 99% of schools in Minnesota" Rebelein discussed a dress code policy that would mirror the association's language. That language removes specific bans on symbols like the KKK, Confederate flag and more. "Based on directives from the Supreme Court of the United States and provides latitude for student expression and limitations around to ensure a positive learning environment for all students," he said. The board room wasn't even big enough for the size of the crowd that showed up on Thursday. The meeting was filled with students and former board members. "Where do we draw the line? Where?" one student told WCCO. "We need to start going back the direction of making every child feel included," said a former board member. Even a former superintendent attended. They were a teacher at the time the initial dress code was created, after an African American student was assaulted by students in 1997. The next day, students wore white shirts showing support of the incident. "It has bounced back and forth, which is why it's getting so much attention," the former board member said.
CNN
5 days ago
- Politics
- CNN
Judge indefinitely blocks Trump's proclamation suspending new Harvard international students
A federal judge on Monday indefinitely blocked a recent attempt by President Donald Trump to deprive Harvard University of its ability to bring thousands of international students to its campus. Judge Allison Burroughs of the US District Court in Massachusetts decided Trump's recent presidential proclamation was a violation of the university's constitutional protections, and part of a retaliatory campaign the Trump administration has waged. The White House said the proclamation against international students coming to the US to study at Harvard was for national security purposes, because Harvard wasn't properly vetting incoming scholars from other countries. But Burroughs took the opportunity to outline her reaction to the administration's repeated attempts to cut into Harvard's student body and approach to teaching. 'This case is about core constitutional rights that must be safeguarded: freedom of thought, freedom of expression, and freedom of speech, each of which is a pillar of a functioning democracy and an essential hedge against authoritarianism,' Burroughs wrote in a 44-page opinion Monday. 'Here, the government's efforts to control a reputable academic institution and squelch diverse viewpoints, seemingly because they are, in some instances, opposed to this Administration's own views, threaten these rights. To make matters worse, the government attempts to accomplish this, at least in part, on the backs of international students,' she wrote. The judge previously indefinitely blocked an attempt by the Trump Homeland Security and State departments to revoke Harvard's student visa program, which would have affected nearly a quarter of its student body and prompted students to leave the country or transfer. Her decision on Monday dealt with a follow-up Trump administration action toward stopping international students from getting visas to study at Harvard. Burroughs, an Obama appointee sitting in a jurisdiction with no Trump-appointed judges at the trial or appellate level, is also set to decide this summer on a major legal challenge from Harvard against the Trump administration's decision to cut its federal grants. Various federal agencies have frozen more than $2 billion in funding for Harvard programs, largely for medical and scientific research. The elite, wealthy private university is now at the center of Trump administration pushback against intellectual and cultural institutions that have been perceived as too liberal by the conservative administration. It is the most prominent American university to sue in response to Trump administration decisions that the university says could potentially cause major damage to it as an institution. The administration has in some instances argued its various recent actions arose because Harvard hasn't complied with the priorities of the president, such as anti-diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives and scrutiny of the handling of campus protests around the war in Gaza and Israel.
CNN
5 days ago
- Politics
- CNN
Judge indefinitely blocks Trump's proclamation suspending new Harvard international students
A federal judge on Monday indefinitely blocked a recent attempt by President Donald Trump to deprive Harvard University of its ability to bring thousands of international students to its campus. Judge Allison Burroughs of the US District Court in Massachusetts decided Trump's recent presidential proclamation was a violation of the university's constitutional protections, and part of a retaliatory campaign the Trump administration has waged. The White House said the proclamation against international students coming to the US to study at Harvard was for national security purposes, because Harvard wasn't properly vetting incoming scholars from other countries. But Burroughs took the opportunity to outline her reaction to the administration's repeated attempts to cut into Harvard's student body and approach to teaching. 'This case is about core constitutional rights that must be safeguarded: freedom of thought, freedom of expression, and freedom of speech, each of which is a pillar of a functioning democracy and an essential hedge against authoritarianism,' Burroughs wrote in a 44-page opinion Monday. 'Here, the government's efforts to control a reputable academic institution and squelch diverse viewpoints, seemingly because they are, in some instances, opposed to this Administration's own views, threaten these rights. To make matters worse, the government attempts to accomplish this, at least in part, on the backs of international students,' she wrote. The judge previously indefinitely blocked an attempt by the Trump Homeland Security and State departments to revoke Harvard's student visa program, which would have affected nearly a quarter of its student body and prompted students to leave the country or transfer. Her decision on Monday dealt with a follow-up Trump administration action toward stopping international students from getting visas to study at Harvard. Burroughs, an Obama appointee sitting in a jurisdiction with no Trump-appointed judges at the trial or appellate level, is also set to decide this summer on a major legal challenge from Harvard against the Trump administration's decision to cut its federal grants. Various federal agencies have frozen more than $2 billion in funding for Harvard programs, largely for medical and scientific research. The elite, wealthy private university is now at the center of Trump administration pushback against intellectual and cultural institutions that have been perceived as too liberal by the conservative administration. It is the most prominent American university to sue in response to Trump administration decisions that the university says could potentially cause major damage to it as an institution. The administration has in some instances argued its various recent actions arose because Harvard hasn't complied with the priorities of the president, such as anti-diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives and scrutiny of the handling of campus protests around the war in Gaza and Israel.
